On Mon 2012-Oct-29 11:33, Marc Lewis writes:   
   ML> There is an optional modification offered where the mixer loses the   
   ML> Limiter and becomes a full 8 channels.  The stereo 1-2 input becomes   
   ML> channel 1 and the limiter becomes channel 2; the rest of the   
   ML> channels remain unaffected.   
      
    RW>   I hope you folks recommend against that one, I can   
    RW> understand offering it, but ... I never run headphone or   
    RW> in-ear monitor (those little earbud) mixes without a   
    RW> limiter. But then, to me that's a safety issue.   
      
   ML> Actually it's very popluar.  Although the SPL available at the ear   
   ML> drum varies with the type of headset, it can get quite   
   ML> uncomfortable.  It's rather up to the individual to exercise common   
   ML> sense.   
      
   YEah it is, but most of the individuals don't know what can   
   happen on a bandstand, or what they might be doing to   
   themselves with that earbud stuffed in the ear canal.  When   
   i control the mix for cans or earbuds it *always* has a   
   limiter between the mix bus/buses used and the wearer of the cans or buds.    
   But then, that's me.  iS that defeatable   
   station by station?   
   YOu folks might want to warn potential custopmers of the   
   inherent dangers in defeating it.  I know i sure would.   
   REmember, a lot of folks who spend the money on this stuff   
   are clueless.   
      
   ML> In the service department I see lots of them (there are many tens of   
   ML> thousands out in the field.) The come from lots of   
   ML> churches, recording studios, educational institutions and   
   ML> individuals.   
      
    RW> I'm curious how many of them you see where they've used that   
    RW> modification.    
      
   ML> I've installed about 80 of them so far; it is a new offering as of a   
   ML> few months ago. (I'm the guy that does all the mods.)   
      
   NOt bad.  I think when I did the mod I'd make sure they know that defeating   
   that limiter could be hazardous to fragile   
   eardrums etc. and make sure that warning jumped off the page at them.   
      
      
   ML> IIRC, I believe we also have an adapter to take ADAT optical input   
   ML> and produce a Hear Back output (Cat 5).  I'll check on that - that's   
   ML> something I never see in the service department.    
      
      
   I'd bet so.  Adat optical to cat5 seems to be a pretty   
   common way of shipping audio around digitally these days.   
      
    RW> Remember a lot of my work back in my live sound   
    RW> reinforcement days was mixing monitors.  I recall when I   
    RW> first read the phrase "friends don't let friends mix   
    RW> monitors."  I've found though back when I was doing it that   
    RW> performers who knew you were being diligent about getting   
    RW> them what they needed to perform well did indeed thank you   
    RW> for it.  i actually enjoyed it more than not.  When I didn't it was   
    RW> usually working with less than professionals who   
    RW> engaged in the volume wars all during the performance.   
      
   ML> That's where this type of system comes into play... virtually   
   ML> eliminating the volume wars and making it SO much easier for the FOH   
   ML> guy.   
      
   YEp, that's laways been as i've seen them advertised.  I   
   guess I'm interested in the perspective of the foh guys   
   whether they feel that after adopting such systems with a   
   group of performers who had these problems things improved.   
      
   I recall when in-ear monitoring first came out the big   
   selling point was lower stage volumes, etc.  But some tell   
   me that the volume wars just change their complexion.   
      
      
    RW> I've used one but only in the studio, and only in someone   
    RW> else's.  ONe time, and this was years ago, producing an   
    RW> album project for some people who were less than   
    RW> professional.  I'm comfortable in my own skin getting a   
    RW> blend of what I need to hear whether on stage or in the   
    RW> studio, but my encounters with personal mixing stations were doing   
    RW> producer/engineer, hence the other side of the glass.   
    RW> MOst of the performers picked up on the concept and could   
    RW> work with it, but one in   
   ML>  particular couldn't quite wrap his   
    RW> head around it.  I finally hooked a paralleled set of cans   
    RW> up, set his mix up and told him to leave it alone from that   
    RW> point on so we could finish the foundation tracks .   
      
   ML> There's one in every bunch, Richard.    
      
   Oh yeah, always.  It's when you get those one in every crowd working together   
   and have two or three on the same bandstand that things get interesting .   
      
      
   Any of you folks out in the trenches in the field care to   
   jump on this one?   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ... Pre production planning prevents poor Performance!   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)